We cannot repeal the laws of nature. If we continue to do nothing, the floods, wildfires, heat waves and extreme weather that have wreaked havoc across our nation — at a cost of tens of billions of dollars annually — will increase and intensify. And future generations will never understand why we squandered our shrinking opportunity to protect the planet.

Last Congress, the Democratic-controlled House took dramatic action to protect American families and our economy from the immense challenges posed by global climate change. We enacted new programs to invest in America’s clean energy future, and we passed a comprehensive energy bill, which stalled in the Senate, to reduce weather-altering carbon pollution.

This Congress, the Republican-controlled House has reversed course. It has voted 21 times to block actions to address climate change, including a vote to deny that “climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities and poses significant risks for public health and welfare.”

History will look back on this U-turn with profound regret.

Last year, the National Academy of Sciences proposed a “carbon budget” for the United States that would represent how much carbon we can emit into the atmosphere between now and 2050 without triggering potentially catastrophic changes to our climate. We are on track to burn through our entire carbon budget in less than 25 years. Every year of delay means far more drastic actions will be needed in the future.

Despite the magnitude of the stakes, most Americans are confused by the climate debate because House Republicans spread fear and deny fact. It’s time to deconstruct the arguments Republicans in Congress use to justify their irresponsible votes.

We question the science but don’t want to hear from the experts

Tea party Republicans explain their votes by denying that climate change is occurring or that human activities are responsible. A common refrain I hear on the House Energy and Commerce Committee is that the science is “not settled.” But even as committee Republicans argue the science is unresolved, they have, with one exception, rejected repeated requests to bring scientists before the committee to educate members. And Republicans have voted to slash funding for climate science and to eliminate NASA’s Earth-monitoring activities.

This makes no sense. If House Republicans are genuinely unsure about what’s occurring, why would they halt scientific research and refuse to hear from the experts at the National Academy of Sciences?

No policy is ever the right sizeWhen the House passed comprehensive climate legislation in 2009, Republicans claimed it would be too big and too costly. That was never accurate: The Congressional Budget Office estimated our measure would cost the average family less than the price of a postage stamp a day. But when the Environmental Protection Agency took a different approach and proposed modest, cost-effective measures to reduce carbon pollution, Republicans complained the EPA plan should be rejected because it was too small to make a difference. “Don’t talk to me about incrementalism when we talk about climate change,” said one Energy and Commerce Republican in voting to strip EPA of regulatory authority.

We can’t act alone … or with other nations

When the administration tries to reduce carbon pollution in the United States, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, says he cannot support “unilateral” action that he claims could result in “losing jobs to nations like China that have no intention of burdening their industry with similar restrictions.”

But Upton and other House Republicans have opposed efforts to develop an international consensus to address climate change. All but three House Republicans voted to prohibit funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body that advises nations on the state of the science. The State Department appropriations bill approved by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs bars funding for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the international body that’s trying to develop an effective global response. In fact, House Republicans even oppose other countries’ efforts to reduce carbon pollution. A bill recently passed by the House would prohibit American carriers from complying with the European Union’s flexible, market-based limit on carbon pollution from airplane flights that land in Europe.

Setting climate policy is Congress’s role, but we can’t be bothered

Rep. Ed Whitfield (R-Ky.), chairman of the House Energy and Power Subcommittee, has argued that EPA should not regulate carbon pollution because Congress, not “unelected bureaucrats at EPA,” should set policy in this area. Yet he voted against the legislation to reduce carbon emissions last Congress and has not used his chairmanship in this Congress to propose a new approach.

“All of the above” is code for “do nothing”

House Republicans like Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, say they support “an all-of-the-above energy solution” that includes “incentives to move us toward clean, renewable and reliable sources of energy.” But they oppose policies that would create a market for renewable energy by putting a price on carbon. They advocate eliminating federal loan guarantees that provide incentives to commercialize promising technologies, and they vote to slash research and development funding for renewable energy.

Henry Ford once said, “Don’t find fault, find a remedy.” Congressional Democrats and the Obama administration have proposed a broad menu of ideas for combating climate change, including cap-and-trade policies, support for clean energy, investments in research and development and international engagement. If House Republicans object to the climate policies we have proposed, they should offer their own solutions. As I told Chairman Upton in March, I am not wedded to any one approach to addressing climate change. I am open to creative ideas and am willing to start from a blank piece of paper. But having no policy will have horrible consequences.

We cannot repeal the laws of nature. If we continue to do nothing, the floods, wildfires, heat waves and extreme weather that have wreaked havoc across our nation — at a cost of tens of billions of dollars annually — will increase and intensify. And future generations will never understand why we squandered our shrinking opportunity to protect the planet.

– Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) is the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr Waxman it is much more involved than simply “we cannot be bothered.” You know this. You know they wished to pass an actual law to deny climate change. You know very well they will obstruct every single effort to legislate GHG emissions. “They should offer their own solutions!!!” Solutions to what? They deny a problem exists. You are being too nice. You should attack them for their ignorance. You should attack them for the danger they clearly present to America and American prosperity. You should attack them for the terrorist they are!

President Obama’s relative silence on the hugely important issue of climate change is deafening–leaving many Americans highly misinformed about something that has the potential to cause us serious problems.

Can you use your considerable influenece to encourage the president to speak out? It would make our path forward much easier.

The solution is easy: target any Republican running for Congress for defeat.

But to be more realistic, pick out the dirty dozen in Congress no matter their party and target them for defeat.

Forget about the President because Congress is the problem. Make Congress the solution to the dangers to the environment and the future, and it won’t matter who is President.

The environmental activism spurred Nixon to create the EPA.

The activists failed to carry through on their commitment in the past four decades.

And the activists have clearly been supporters of the GOP, or at least complicit in rewarding the GOP in Congress for each further step toward legalizing total environmental pillage and plunder.

I’m old, and have no kids, so in a way I’d love to see an ice sheet slide into the sea and raise sea level by 3 feet in the next decade or so; I have lots of friends I’d love to say “I told you so” to.

I got a good start in life when Democrats were in the majority, so I’ve survived the GOP setting the economic and environmental agenda. But the GOP has harmed all but a few yet they get rewarded with reelection, especially if the deny facts and logic and call for policies that kill workers, consumers, children, and the future.

Why the voters so hate themselves they vote GOP is certainly the mystery.